Article Text

Download PDFPDF

529 Phase 1 study of INCB086550, an oral PD-L1 inhibitor, in immune-checkpoint naive patients with advanced solid tumors
  1. Eric Van Cutsem1,
  2. Hans Prenen2,
  3. Brant Delafontaine3,
  4. Kristen Spencer4,
  5. Tara Mitchell5,
  6. Howard Burris6,
  7. Nuria Kotecki7,
  8. Rebecca Kristeleit8,
  9. David Pinato9,
  10. Solmaz Sahebjam10,
  11. Donna Graham11,
  12. Thomas Karasic5,
  13. Jeannie Daniel12,
  14. Kevin O’Hayer12,
  15. Ryan Geschwindt12 and
  16. Sarina Piha-Paul13
  1. 1University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
  2. 2University Hospital Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
  3. 3Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
  4. 4Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
  5. 5University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
  6. 6Sarah Cannon, Nashville, TN, USA
  7. 7Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium
  8. 8Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital, London, UK
  9. 9Imperial College London, London, UK
  10. 10Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
  11. 11The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
  12. 12Incyte Corporation, Wilmington, DE, USA
  13. 13University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer, Houston, TX, USA


Background INCB086550 is an orally administered small molecule that binds PD-L1 and inhibits PD-1/PD-L1 interaction. Translational data demonstrating markers of immune activation in patients following INCB086550 were previously reported.1 Preliminary clinical data from this phase 1 study are presented below.

Methods Adult patients (≥18 years) with advanced solid tumors were enrolled into this open-label study. Patients had disease progression after standard available therapy or were intolerant of or ineligible for standard treatment. Measurable disease was required. A modified 3+3 dose-escalation design was employed, followed by dose expansions. The primary endpoints were safety and tolerability of INCB086550, identification of a pharmacologically active dose and/or MTD, and confirmation of the RP2D. Secondary endpoints included PK, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy as assessed by investigator-determined ORR and DCR (CR, PR, or SD ≥12 weeks).

Results As of 9Apr2021, 79 patients received treatment (Table 1); 57.0% were female, 62.0% had ≥2 prior lines of therapy, and 16% received prior IO treatment. Forty-six (58.2%) patients had treatment-related TEAEs; those occurring in ≥5% of patients are presented in Table 2. Ten patients (12.7%) had grade ≥3 treatment-related TEAEs. Immune-related TEAEs occurred in 15 patients (19.0%); the most common (>1 patient) included peripheral sensory neuropathy (n=5), pruritus (n=3), immune-mediated neuropathy (n=2), and peripheral motor neuropathy (n=2). In total, 10 (12.7%) patients had TEAEs of peripheral neuropathy; all were grade ≤3. All grade 2 or 3 TEAEs of peripheral neuropathy resolved or improved with either study drug continuation without dose modification, dose reduction, or drug interruption/discontinuation. Patients with TEAEs leading to treatment interruption were 21 (26.6%), dose reduction 5 (6.3%), and discontinuation 13 (16.5%). Five patients (6.3%) died of a TEAE (cerebrovascular accident, dyspnea, general physical health deterioration, intestinal obstruction, intracranial hemorrhage [each n=1]); all fatal TEAEs were considered unrelated to study drug. The efficacy-evaluable population included 68 patients; ORR was 11.8% (95%CI, 5.2%–21.9%; CR, 1.5%; PR, 10.3%), and DCR was 19.1% (95%CI, 10.6%–30.5%; Table 3). Eight objective responses were observed at doses ≥400 mg BID (Table 4); 3 of these were noted among the 5 IO treatment-naive patients with MSI-H tumors who received 400 mg BID.

Conclusions Immune-related AEs observed in this ongoing phase 1 study are consistent with those seen with antibody immune checkpoint inhibitors, with the exception of peripheral neuropathy. Preliminary efficacy of INCB086550 in tumor types known to be responsive to anti-PD-(L)1 therapy is encouraging and warrants further investigation.

Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.

gov identifier NCT03762447


  1. Piha-Paul S, et al. J Immunother Cancer. 2020;8(suppl 3):A255.

Ethics Approval The study protocol was approved by institutional review boards (IRB) or independent ethics committees at participating centers. All study participants gave informed consent before taking part. The approval numbers were: Integ Review IRB (Austin, TX), RM 598; MD Anderson Cancer Center Office of Human Subject Protection (Houston, TX), IRB ID 2018-0765; ADVARRA (Columbia, MD), IRB# 00000971; Ethisch Comité/Comité d’ Ethique Hospital (Brussels, Belgium), A2021/085; Hôpital Saint-Louis (Paris, France), Prof Le Tourneau – 2020-118/Ref. of the Promoter; NHS Health Research Authority London - City & East Research Ethics Committee (Bristol, UK), IRAS project ID:282291/REC reference: 20/LO/1001; Comitato Etico IRCCS Pascale (Milan, Italy), ISS Validation Protocol Number 29111(2020)-PRE21-1835; Comitato Etico Della Fondazione IRCCS ”Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori”- Milano CE150053 (Milan, Italy), INT 230/20; Comitato Etico Regione Toscana - Area Vasta Sud Est CE150047, 18064; Comitato Etico Indipendente Istituto Clinico Humanitas CE150081, 940/20; Regulatory Pharma Net (Pisa, Italy), IEC 1393.

Abstract 529 Table 1

Number of patients per dose level

Abstract 529 Table 2

Treatment-related TEAEs reported by ≥5% of patients (N=79)

Abstract 529 Table 3

Summary of best overall response by RECIST v1.1 or RANO*

Abstract 529 Table 4

Tumor types with investigator-assessed objective response per RECIST v1.1 (n=8)

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.